Beware ! Traffic Police and civil parking matters
Discussion
Greg66 said:
I can't decide whether this quaint idea of yours - that a bailiff is interested in a chat - is endearing or naive.
I like to think if it as a an enduring hope that not everyone is a 
. And that in the case of a true mistake then the 'victim' will come to no harm.
That's always been the case for me when I've been a victim of a mixup, and I hope it's the case for others.
Snowboy said:
I like to think if it as a an enduring hope that not everyone is a .
And that in the case of a true mistake then the 'victim' will come to no harm.
That's always been the case for me when I've been a victim of a mixup, and I hope it's the case for others.
You are right, not everyone is a . And that in the case of a true mistake then the 'victim' will come to no harm.
That's always been the case for me when I've been a victim of a mixup, and I hope it's the case for others.
, but then again, not everyone is a bailiff.Snowboy said:
Fif.
I've said I'm not providing another link to stuff that's been discussed several times on this thread.
I've said I'm not providing another link to stuff that's been discussed several times on this thread.
Snowboy said:
10 Pence Short said:
Please provide the fking link you talked about.
I didn't talk about a link. I mentioned a law change.king link you talked about.A change that has been discussed several times in this thread.
You have asked for a link, I have declined to find one for you.
Snowboy said:
However, if you follow the link to the balifs site above it explains the law changes quite clearly and the impact of them.
@Fif and 10PS. I think he is referring to this - http://bailiffadviceonline.co.uk/bailiff-advice/lo...The legislative one is here - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthr...
It came into effect on 6th April. It could cost an innocent owner who bought a car not knowing there was an outstanding debt warrant in force a great deal of inconvenience and cost to get his/her property returned.
It's yet another example of a law designed to thwart scrotes operating to the detriment of honest citizens who have little or no recourse.
Interestingly the bailiff whose charges the OP is having trouble with is connected with the same firm as the individual featured in this programme - http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b040rdxs/Pano...
Snowboy likes to think that bailiffs don't bend the rules they are supposed to play by. An endearingly naïve POV.
There are two elements to the discussion now I think.
One do with police stopping cars and one to do with balifs impounding cars that have changed ownership.
In the OP's case though he hadn't bought a new car, he did actually owe the money, but wasn't aware of it. If a balif had seen his car parked then they could have just taken it.
In my opinion that would have been worse for the OP.
So, back to the earlier question which I think gets to the point of the OP from a social perspective.
If the police no longer did stops like this, do you think it would be better or worse for the OP?
Bearing in mind he still owes the money, and the debt is tagged to his reg number.
(@fif, the second link which was copied from p1 of the thread doesn't say much beyond what's said in the first link, which you posted yourself. It's just a bit of discussion about the changes. I'd suggest your link is actually better.
)
One do with police stopping cars and one to do with balifs impounding cars that have changed ownership.
In the OP's case though he hadn't bought a new car, he did actually owe the money, but wasn't aware of it. If a balif had seen his car parked then they could have just taken it.
In my opinion that would have been worse for the OP.
So, back to the earlier question which I think gets to the point of the OP from a social perspective.
If the police no longer did stops like this, do you think it would be better or worse for the OP?
Bearing in mind he still owes the money, and the debt is tagged to his reg number.
(@fif, the second link which was copied from p1 of the thread doesn't say much beyond what's said in the first link, which you posted yourself. It's just a bit of discussion about the changes. I'd suggest your link is actually better.
)Edited by Snowboy on Wednesday 16th April 07:43
Variomatic said:
Rovinghawk said:
I refer you to my earlier comments of what I like to think but how reality is different.
If you're working late then you never know - she's just left mine about 5 mins ago. But I'm afraid the custard's gone cold and has a slight taint to it now 
Snowboy][... said:
So, back to the earlier question which I think gets to the point of the OP from a social perspective.
If the police no longer did stops like this, do you think it would be better or worse for the OP?[...]
The thing is, that isn't actually the real issue.If the police no longer did stops like this, do you think it would be better or worse for the OP?[...]
The real issue is that the Police are given certain powers, which can be exercised in (generally) carefully specified circumstances. It's vital that those specified circumstances are respected for a couple of reasons.
First, the Police rely on the cooperation of the public to do their job ("policing by consent"). That only happens if they're either respected or feared and, if that cooperation is lost then we end up with riots.
It's virtually impossible to "police" a society that turns round and says "No". Imagine the traffic stop the OP described if every driver just ignored the order to pull over - they couldn't chase them all, and the courts would soon be so full that they'd get no other business done if they tried to summons them all!
To maintain respect, people have to see that the police "play by the rules". If they don't then the only other way is to use fear, and we do NOT want to live in asociety where the police are feared!
Second, without limits to the use of their powers, the opportunities for corruption are enormous. Quite apart from the knock-on effect that has on respect, facilitating corruption of people in power is bad for everyone.
It's debatable whether the situation the OP described comes under legitimate use of the power to stop vehicles, even if they are making a prima facie show of stopping other vehicles as well, if the operation was set up with assisting the bailifs being part of the prime reasons for it.
A simple FOIA request to the Met and to TFL would answer that - I suspect they'd decline to answer using the excuse of prejudicing the operation of justice - a fairly certain sign that they know they're pushing their powers too far
Variomatic said:
The thing is, that isn't actually the real issue.
The real issue is that the Police are given certain powers, which can be exercised in (generally) carefully specified circumstances. It's vital that those specified circumstances are respected for a couple of reasons.
First, the Police rely on the cooperation of the public to do their job ("policing by consent"). That only happens if they're either respected or feared and, if that cooperation is lost then we end up with riots.
It's virtually impossible to "police" a society that turns round and says "No". Imagine the traffic stop the OP described if every driver just ignored the order to pull over - they couldn't chase them all, and the courts would soon be so full that they'd get no other business done if they tried to summons them all!
To maintain respect, people have to see that the police "play by the rules". If they don't then the only other way is to use fear, and we do NOT want to live in asociety where the police are feared!
Second, without limits to the use of their powers, the opportunities for corruption are enormous. Quite apart from the knock-on effect that has on respect, facilitating corruption of people in power is bad for everyone.
It's debatable whether the situation the OP described comes under legitimate use of the power to stop vehicles, even if they are making a prima facie show of stopping other vehicles as well, if the operation was set up with assisting the bailifs being part of the prime reasons for it.
A simple FOIA request to the Met and to TFL would answer that - I suspect they'd decline to answer using the excuse of prejudicing the operation of justice - a fairly certain sign that they know they're pushing their powers too far
I fully understand what you are saying.The real issue is that the Police are given certain powers, which can be exercised in (generally) carefully specified circumstances. It's vital that those specified circumstances are respected for a couple of reasons.
First, the Police rely on the cooperation of the public to do their job ("policing by consent"). That only happens if they're either respected or feared and, if that cooperation is lost then we end up with riots.
It's virtually impossible to "police" a society that turns round and says "No". Imagine the traffic stop the OP described if every driver just ignored the order to pull over - they couldn't chase them all, and the courts would soon be so full that they'd get no other business done if they tried to summons them all!
To maintain respect, people have to see that the police "play by the rules". If they don't then the only other way is to use fear, and we do NOT want to live in asociety where the police are feared!
Second, without limits to the use of their powers, the opportunities for corruption are enormous. Quite apart from the knock-on effect that has on respect, facilitating corruption of people in power is bad for everyone.
It's debatable whether the situation the OP described comes under legitimate use of the power to stop vehicles, even if they are making a prima facie show of stopping other vehicles as well, if the operation was set up with assisting the bailifs being part of the prime reasons for it.
A simple FOIA request to the Met and to TFL would answer that - I suspect they'd decline to answer using the excuse of prejudicing the operation of justice - a fairly certain sign that they know they're pushing their powers too far
I agree with a fair portion of it.
But, I still think that there's nothing wrong with police assisting balifs by way of traffic stops.
In fact, the more I read about balif practice's I think there's a good argument for insisting that police and/or owner are present when a balif impounds a car so the police can assist in confirming it's the correct owner.
Snowboy said:
[...]I think there's a good argument for insisting that police and/or owner are present when a balif impounds a car so the police can assist in confirming it's the correct owner.
Quite possibly.But as the law stands that isn't within police powers. Changing the law is a matter for parliament - it is never acceptable for a police force to extend its own powers without oversight!
Well I have now read that consumer action group thread linked above and I am shocked.
Interesting the comment that Metropolitan Police have been contracted to provide by councils to provide vehicle stop operations and that officers stand by looking uneasy while bailiffs reach in through open windows to attempt to remove keys with force.
I have slightly changed my stance on this. I was generously allowing for detailed circumstances where this may be acceptable but in the main felt this was over the line. This has now changed to being completely over the line. Not acceptable.
Always the bloody Met.
Interesting the comment that Metropolitan Police have been contracted to provide by councils to provide vehicle stop operations and that officers stand by looking uneasy while bailiffs reach in through open windows to attempt to remove keys with force.
I have slightly changed my stance on this. I was generously allowing for detailed circumstances where this may be acceptable but in the main felt this was over the line. This has now changed to being completely over the line. Not acceptable.
Always the bloody Met.
Snowboy said:
Greg66 said:
I can't decide whether this quaint idea of yours - that a bailiff is interested in a chat - is endearing or naive.
I like to think if it as a an enduring hope that not everyone is a . And that in the case of a true mistake then the 'victim' will come to no harm.
That's always been the case for me when I've been a victim of a mixup, and I hope it's the case for others.
Read this and consider the fact that it is not conjecture, but an actual, highly detailed case with drastic implications for the way things are going within the legal system in England. Had I been at my daughters when this happened, I would most certainly have ended up in serious trouble, particularly with the police, who utterly failed to protect her.
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
J
FiF said:
Well I have now read that consumer action group thread linked above and I am shocked.
For those who haven't clicked the link, part of it says this:Article said:
"A further area of concern is that during the past year many London councils are contracting with the Metropolitan Police to set up ‘road blocks’ with bailiff companies in order to pursue unpaid parking tickets. During the first week of September there were approximately three such ‘roadside operations’,( as they are commonly called) What happens is that when a vehicle registration number is detected by the bailiff’s ANPR equipment the vehicle owner is asked by police officers to “pull over” whilst the police check the drivers identity etc before introducing him to the certificated bailiff. In all such operations a removal vehicle will be parked nearby.
Under Part 6, if the vehicle has changed ownership the new owner will very likely find himself under duress to make payment of the previous owner’s debt in order to avoid paying an amount “equal to the value of his car into court to secure an interpleader application”.
Worryingly, we have recently received a lot of enquiries concerning bailiff enforcement by ANPR when pursuing parking tickets issued by one particular London authority which has recently signed a bailiff contract and they are only now registering debts at the Traffic Enforcement Centre for parking contraventions in 2009!!
Once again, the warrant has upon it the registration number of the car involved in the contravention in 2009 and, in the intervening four years, the vehicle may well have been sold and – given that the bailiff is seeking to locate the vehicle and not the debtor –the new owner could be faced with the prospect of an interpleader application, and will very likely also be forced to make payment of the previous owners’ debt"
I've put the nastiest bit in bold.Under Part 6, if the vehicle has changed ownership the new owner will very likely find himself under duress to make payment of the previous owner’s debt in order to avoid paying an amount “equal to the value of his car into court to secure an interpleader application”.
Worryingly, we have recently received a lot of enquiries concerning bailiff enforcement by ANPR when pursuing parking tickets issued by one particular London authority which has recently signed a bailiff contract and they are only now registering debts at the Traffic Enforcement Centre for parking contraventions in 2009!!
Once again, the warrant has upon it the registration number of the car involved in the contravention in 2009 and, in the intervening four years, the vehicle may well have been sold and – given that the bailiff is seeking to locate the vehicle and not the debtor –the new owner could be faced with the prospect of an interpleader application, and will very likely also be forced to make payment of the previous owners’ debt"
Parking wars BBC 1 tonight featured oneof these stops.
For those who didn't see it quite obvious what was going on.
Bailiffs completely in charge requesting which vehicles were stopped. Police officers lined up requested the stop, leant in through the passenger window then turned and pointed to the bailiffs.
Met should be ashamed.
For those who didn't see it quite obvious what was going on.
Bailiffs completely in charge requesting which vehicles were stopped. Police officers lined up requested the stop, leant in through the passenger window then turned and pointed to the bailiffs.
Met should be ashamed.
FiF said:
Parking wars BBC 1 tonight featured oneof these stops.
For those who didn't see it quite obvious what was going on.
Bailiffs completely in charge requesting which vehicles were stopped. Police officers lined up requested the stop, leant in through the passenger window then turned and pointed to the bailiffs.
Met should be ashamed.
Sounds very similar to the police stopping motorists so that vehicle examiners or DOT staff could speak to the drivers.For those who didn't see it quite obvious what was going on.
Bailiffs completely in charge requesting which vehicles were stopped. Police officers lined up requested the stop, leant in through the passenger window then turned and pointed to the bailiffs.
Met should be ashamed.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff